In article <41kmno$84 at news.acns.nwu.edu>, ikekim at merle.acns.nwu.edu.
(Isaac Kim) wrote:
>Organization: Northwestern University
>Reply-To: ikekim at merle.acns.nwu.edu>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>>>I have used quantitative RT-PCR for past publications. I have had no
>problems with the reviewers. The main problem with RT-PCR is that
>different primers have different efficiency of amplification. If you
>choose the conditions of the standard correctly, RT-PCR can be more
>accurate than Northern blot analysis, in my experience. Even more
>interestingly, a recent manuscript that I submitted to a reputable
>journal, the reviewers' response was that I should use quantitative
>RT-PCR over that of Northern blot analysis for all my studies as the
>control for Northern, GAPDH, showed variations in the level. I would like
>to direct you to two articles regarding this matter.
>Siebert PD et al. 1992. Competitive PCR. Nature 359:557-558
>Forster E. 1994. Rapid generation of internal standards for competitive
>PCR by low-stringency primer annealing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the second reference is...
____________________________________________________________________________
Richard R. Hardy Member, Institute for Cancer Research
Fox Chase Cancer Center Tel: (215) 728-2463
7701 Burholme Ave. FAX: (215) 728-2412
Philadelphia, PA 19111 E-MAIL: R_HARDY at fccc.edu